AMD is triumphing over Intel after a decade of second-best

mongeese

Posts: 407   +63
Staff member

Not to be vindictive, though I believe it to be a very appropriate time for schadenfreude, Mindfactory’s hard data puts a hilarious spin on Intel’s sales development manager Troy Severson’s recent comments. “I'll be very honest, very blunt, say, hey, they've done a great job closing the gap, but we still have the highest performing CPUs in the industry for gaming, and we're going to maintain that edge.”

Credit where it’s due, the i9-9900K is incredibly powerful. The difference is that for Intel the 9900K and the 9700K are the two breadwinners of the line-up, while the Ryzen 9 3900X generated their combined revenue in July. AMD has dominated over the last two months in Germany.

Full disclaimer: German markets have historically been more biased towards Ryzen than American ones, and AMD’s sales will fall a bit before stabilizing, while Intel’s appear to have already plateaued. We rarely get a detailed view and breakdown of sales data as the one published by Mindfactory, which is representative of a portion of the German retail channel. To put things in perspective, in Amazon US the top 25 best selling processors comprise 9 Intel CPUs with the remainder being all Ryzen.

Some interesting things to note about the sales volume graph: a large portion of the market seemed to be lying dormant until Ryzen 3000 released, so it appears to be a favorite among long term purchasers.

Surprisingly, Ryzen 2600X and 2700 sales didn’t fall with the new release, while 2600 and 2700X sales did. Ranked, AMD’s most popular models are the 3600, 3700X, 2600, 3900X, and 2600X. Intel’s most popular are the 9900K, 9700K and 9600K.

The revenue figures are fascinating, demonstrating that Intel has been able to produce high-end CPUs that may be more profitable than AMD’s options until now. AMD’s most powerful options are slightly more profitable than Intel’s, yet because of the less profitable 3600 and 2600, Intel’s parts are on average more profitable.

We can also argue why AMD decided to shift 12-core and 16-core configurations from Threadripper to Ryzen: Threadripper would appear to be inconsequential revenue-wise. It only created as much revenue as AMD’s little Picasso APUs, which is quite curious, as AMD is not marketing those whatsoever and didn’t send out review samples. There appears to be significant demand for the cheaper 12-core Ryzen, however.

It’s clear that AMD’s Pinnacle Ridge parts (Ryzen 2000 series) still form an essential part of their revenue, effectively filling in for low-end Ryzen 3000. Intel operates much the same with Coffee Lake, particularly the 8700K still appealing to customers.

While Intel processors remain a good purchase in many circumstances and will rightly continue to sell well, what’s so exciting is that Intel finally has an undeniable equal in the CPU world. With AMD no doubt eager to press its advantage and Intel executives fighting furiously to develop a response, the future looks promising.

Permalink to story.

 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 922   +544
I’m not going to call AMD equal to Intel yet. Intel is far more consistent than AMD. It’s really been about 13 years since AMD were last truly able to beat Intel like they have done now. If AMD can continue to deliver competitive silicon for the next decade I’d call them an equal. Oh it would help if they could beat them at gaming. A lot of people who like to spend a lot of money investing in a fancy PC are gamers, this includes me, we will typically go for the part that performs the best in gaming and I think the last time AMD could sell us that component it was 2005.

Still, it’s great to see an alternative again. I remember 5 years ago your choices was either Intel, whose parts were quite decent if nothing special or AMD FX which was utter garbage. In the 20+ years of building PCs the FX was the worst CPU I have ever owned by some way. AMD have come an awful long way since then, hopefully they can keep it up.
 

trparky

Posts: 804   +760
The problem with the AMD vs. Intel performance issue is that the performance difference is close to 5 or 7% but the price difference is like 30%. To pay 30% more for a single-digit performance difference doesn't seem like a good idea from a purely financial point of view.

Now that I look back on my 8700K purchase I perhaps made the wrong decision, I should have gone with AMD.
 
With all the worlds money at its disposal, intel can buy anybody to come up faster than AMD. They can pay anybody for better marketing, advertising, engineer, or even trolls.
 

Cod3nflame

Posts: 10   +15
I’m not going to call AMD equal to Intel yet. Intel is far more consistent than AMD. It’s really been about 13 years since AMD were last truly able to beat Intel like they have done now. If AMD can continue to deliver competitive silicon for the next decade I’d call them an equal. Oh it would help if they could beat them at gaming. A lot of people who like to spend a lot of money investing in a fancy PC are gamers, this includes me, we will typically go for the part that performs the best in gaming and I think the last time AMD could sell us that component it was 2005.

Still, it’s great to see an alternative again. I remember 5 years ago your choices was either Intel, whose parts were quite decent if nothing special or AMD FX which was utter garbage. In the 20+ years of building PCs the FX was the worst CPU I have ever owned by some way. AMD have come an awful long way since then, hopefully they can keep it up.
Yerp. Competition is great but I will continue to buy Intel until AMD can actually beat Intel in gaming.
 

emmzo

Posts: 204   +104
Yet with all this competition prices are only going up. Is inflation that bad? I don`t get it. I bought my i7-6700k three years ago for 320 euros, now the equivalent top main stream i7-9700k and Ryzen 3800x cost around 400 euros.
 

Shake

Posts: 29   +16
You need a gpu with these amd cpu's, right? I never dealt with that before, but I'd like to get a 3700x
 

Nobina

Posts: 2,621   +2,244
I bet Ryzen 5 3600 is a big factor for this. They need to keep making Ryzen 5 3600 equivalents each release. That's what most people need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capaill

neeyik

Posts: 1,298   +1,358
Staff member
Wake me when AMD surpasses Intel and Nvidia consistently.
In what sense? AMD's portfolio covers PC desktops and laptops; x86 workstations; servers; compute systems; datacentres; current and next consoles for Sony and Microsoft. The only area they don't currently compete in is supercomputers, but this will almost certainly change over the next couple of years. However, they're clearly behind Nvidia in the autonomous vehicle sector (well, they're not even in it) and Volta, Pascal, and Kepler still rule the roost in the supercomputer sector; they also don't compete at all with Intel in areas such as custom SoCs, networking, and storage. And yes, one could add top-end PC gaming to this comparison too.

But they're a tenth the size of Intel (in terms of workforce and revenue) and half that of Nvida (just revenue, workforce is similar). So without knowing what one expects of such a company, is there not a chance of just sleeping right through everything?
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,473   +5,850
Yet with all this competition prices are only going up.
Yep, if we want prices to drop competition is not what we need. Stagnation is needed to drop prices. I find it funny when people complain about prices and cheer for competition. But it is no point in explaining, they will likely never grasp the concept.
 

theruck

Posts: 230   +103
Techspot has been so AMD biased for such a long time but articles like this just make it more like AMD website. the creativity of the editors ran out long time ago so they pick data at their convenience.
it is no news, neither I do remember such sale stats wow articles praising intel sales
so biased
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,558   +1,556
TechSpot Elite
Yet with all this competition prices are only going up. Is inflation that bad? I don`t get it. I bought my i7-6700k three years ago for 320 euros, now the equivalent top main stream i7-9700k and Ryzen 3800x cost around 400 euros.
Adding another tier of your product at the top and raise prices proportionately for that product is a basic marketing strategy.

Prices still come down since you're paying less per core as the equivalent (now lower) tier products are cheaper. Do it again and you now have 2 products sitting in a higher product level and can charge even more, but reduce the price on your lower products. The plebes get more for less and you bleed the guys who need/want the best dry.

roughly equivalent performance parts:

i7-6700K: 4C8T 4GHz all core Turbo $339 (list)
i5-9400: 6C6T 3.9GHz all core Turbo $182
i3-9350K: 4C4T ~4.3GHz all core Turbo $173

Intel added a tier of performance above the 6700K with the 6C12T 8700K and the price was decent at $359 list. Same goes for the 8C8T 9700K at $374 later on. Both these wipe the floor with the 6700K at a similar, but slightly higher price.

And then you have the 9900K, 2 tiers above the 6700K, offering more than twice the performance at $488. >100% more performance for only 25% more money. That's pretty good business, seems like a decent deal.

All the same goes for AMD, who finally forced Intel into doing actual business. In addition, for content creators AMD has 2 *more* tiers above Intel, and prices their products carefully to match those products' competitiveness with Intel. Again, good business and a decent deal for consumers.
 

darisalfafa

Posts: 8   +11
Your careful wording appears to indicate that you are afraid upsetting Intel fanboys. C'mon! Don't be afraid! Even if the DIY-PC market only accounts for 5% of the whole x86 market, it is a fact that AMD is dominant there. The results at mind factory only implies that and nothing else. Your readers should figure that themselves, you don't have to convey it in your article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

Evernessince

Posts: 5,334   +5,792
I’m not going to call AMD equal to Intel yet. Intel is far more consistent than AMD. It’s really been about 13 years since AMD were last truly able to beat Intel like they have done now. If AMD can continue to deliver competitive silicon for the next decade I’d call them an equal. Oh it would help if they could beat them at gaming. A lot of people who like to spend a lot of money investing in a fancy PC are gamers, this includes me, we will typically go for the part that performs the best in gaming and I think the last time AMD could sell us that component it was 2005.

Still, it’s great to see an alternative again. I remember 5 years ago your choices was either Intel, whose parts were quite decent if nothing special or AMD FX which was utter garbage. In the 20+ years of building PCs the FX was the worst CPU I have ever owned by some way. AMD have come an awful long way since then, hopefully they can keep it up.
They've sure been consistent alright, in delivering less then mediocre 3% improvements. It's even less impressive considering the security bugs.

If you were judging Intel over the past 10 years and they past your muster then the bar for which AMD has to pass is already passed. AMD has doubled core counts twice since Ryzen 1000 launched. Comparatively over the same 10 year period when AMD was not competitive, Intel added 0 cores.

If your definition of consistent is constantly under delivering then in fact AMD had that covered the whole bulldozer period right along with Intel. Being at the top of a turd pile they themselves created doesn't make them that great.